About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
that this system worked extremely well. it was 100% performance as a matter of fact. it's not bad for any u.n. organization to get the task and then i think it's probably the only one which succeeded to make it 100% performance. so the -- that means that both destruction capabilities and the monetary capabilities were forcefully placed. so everything looked shiny and fine until the u.s. government -- it was in spring of 1997, through madeline albright made the statement at george mason university, well, it looks like sanctions are -- disarmament is going well. if it goes well we can still not lift the sanctions which was a condition under the security council. sanctions -- so we can't lift the sanctions until saddam hussein is removed. so that came my obsession with the regime change. that, of course, destroyed in the sense the institution and operations. so i think that experience -- could havi annan led the group to see if they can re-establish something similar and this report of which has not been very much observed. i think we have ideas for iran. that will give really intrusive inspecti
ambassador to the u.n. what about what's going on in the u.n. this week? with the palestinians looking to have their status -- there's an entire agenda. the idea that we're focusing on one set of talking points is ridiculous. >> i know you to be a pretty nonpartisan guy, do you smell anything fishy with this benghazi investigation or the way it was handled? do you sense any incompetence? because if you talk to john mccain or lindsey graham, you ask the question, are we talking about a cover-up or general inconfidence? >> the idea was, why did they turn down the all the added security? why did the ambassador go without adequate security? that's a real issue. why were these decisions made? the question, then, of the talking points, what did the cia provide, why was the intelligence community late in apparently getting the points right? it's not the first time we've seen things like that. it's worth looking at. but the idea that a month later, we're still focusing on this rather than basic questions of foreign policy on how to deal with terrorism in these areas. seems to me we are missing
they go after the u.n. ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target? then they've got a problem with me. and should i choose, if i think that she would be the best person to serve america, in the capacity the state department that i would nominate her. >> are these republicans painting the president into a corner where he almost has to nominate her? >> they might and susan rice should send john mccain some flowers and thank him for this behavior, but the president's answer says why this is a good fight for him. if he takes them on over this, that is a win-win for this president because he will have a lot of people behind him, both in terms of public sentiment. we've got new polls today that suggests that where as people aren't quite thrilled with how the matter has been handled, they don't think the intention was to mislead the american people and other members of the senate have started to distance themselves from what i think is the three newest members of the bat crazy party. she went out and uses talking points not designed to mislead the american people, but were
be payback time for democrats blocking the nomination. >> ooh interesting. >> bill: as u.n. ambassador under george bush. and bush ended up appointing him as an interim appointment or whatever they call that. right? >> which he can't do anymore. >> bill: so that could be what this is all about. but of course, john bolton is the one who said we ought to lop off the top ten floors of the u.n. he was hardly qualified to be u.n. ambassador. victoria jones in studio with us. we'll be joined very shortly by dan from the center for american progress. keep the conversation going. >> announcer: this is the "bill press show." >>i jump out of my skin at people when i'm upset. do you share the sense of outrage that they're doing this, this corruption based on corruption based on corruption. >>i think that's an understatement, eliot. u>> i'm not prone tot. understatement, so explain to me why that is. i think the mob learned from wall st., not vice versa. [ male announcer ] it's that time of year again. time for citi price rewind. becau
, but to support the ratification of the u.n. convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, or as it's known as the crpd. first, i want to thank chairman kerry of the senate foreign relations committee for his diligence and for his leadership on this issue. he has carried this through the committee. he's brought it to the floor. in fact, i was reminded earlier today, we were both on the committee back in the 198 1990's when we first started working on the americans with disabilities act under the tutelage, really, of senator lowell weicker who remains a great friend to this day and is still a great leader on the issues of people with disabilities, and so we go back that far in working together on these issues. i just want to thank senator kerry for his great leadership in bringing us to this point and hopefully the point being that we're going to ratify this wonderful treaty. i want to thank senator lugar again for all of his efforts through so many years on so many different things. on this issue especially going back to the americans with disabilities act, but through all these eff
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)